Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative

[flwromanza]

http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/17/1252449 ... -pavillion
http://www.bdcnetwork.com/renascent-arc ... t-new-life

[peterm]

Who is the architect in charge of the realization of these designs? I suppose it's important for you to make the case that there is a reason that investors should put their money into resurrection, rather than restoration of existing Wright buildings, many of which need an enormous amount of work.
I'm not necessarily opposed to your idea, but without architectural plans, bids and a budget, how do you know what is actually involved in such a bold undertaking?

The devil's advocate,

P

[SDR]

The Banff National Park recreation building (so listed in Hitchcock) seems to have been omitted from "Frank Lloyd Wright 1885 - 1916, the complete works," familiarly known as Taschen [Vol] I -- though the railway station for the same location is published.

The present projected re-creation inevitably brings to mind the recent revival project based upon the Yahara Boathouse sketches If the Banff design is to be subjected to the same indignities revealed in that other effort, all parties might be suitably forewarned ?

Recall the suffering of the owner of a certain lakeside aerie after daring to substitute one Wright-designed element for another, during his restoration. The heavens are still trembling. To announce in advance that liberties will be taken at Banff, as necessary to meet codes, etc, is either remarkably generous or remarkably foolish ?

Visual matter provided by the sponsors of the latter is perhaps also telling. We have two new illustrations, presumably of Wright's design, one an evocative color rendering, shown most recently in detail (below), perhaps inspired by the original winter-time rendering of Lake Como Inn and nicely evocative of Wright's wood and stone structure even if a bit shaky in some repeated window openings, while earlier we saw a nostalgic pencil rendering which does not convince the viewer that he is looking at a forty-five-degree prow, at the near end of the structure.

[SDR]

Which raises the question, what are the similarities and what the differences, between recreating a Wright design never built, as at Yahara, and a lost structure being rebuilt to the original design ?

In the two cases cited the original building site, or as near as might be managed today, has been secured. This is counted as a great plus by many, and as an absolute necessity by some. But what about the original question ? To me, at the moment, the potential problems of veracity, of authenticity, seem virtually the same in each of these two cases.

As part of the ongoing discussion of this potentially explosive corner of Wrightdom -- the recreation of his work, by one means or another -- it might be useful to hear opinions on this point: what is the difference practically, aesthetically, philosophically, morally, between making something drawn but never built, as opposed to built and now lost ?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?

SDR

[SREcklund]

I think this is one of those questions with no correct answer. Purists will decry an attempt to build (or rebuild) something without the input from the person who actually designed it, only to have Monona Terrace and the other '60s projects thrown in their face. Personally, I'd rather just stick with what we have, moan about what we've lost and ponder what we've never had. Put the money and effort into saving what is, not what was or never was. But I suspect I'm in the minority on this, so I guess all I can do is wait for the inevitable opening of the FLW theme park, where you can visit newly built, bastardized and repurposed FLW creations as you wait in line for the rides ...

[Roderick Grant]

Four. That's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ... when they're not riding their four horses, red, white, black and pale. This has disaster written all over it.

[Paul Ringstrom]

so I guess all I can do is wait for the inevitable opening of the FLW theme park, where you can visit newly built, bastardized and repurposed FLW creations as you wait in line for the rides ...

You may not be aware, but there were plans during the '90s, in cooperation with the FLW Fdn, to construct a community of unbuilt Wright designs in Hawaii. This project was to be funded by Japanese investors, but was cut short by the collapse of the Japanese market in 1997.

[SDR]

A next question to ask, in regard to Wright Recreated, is:

What are the implications of faithful adherence to the drawings, or to the initial built reality, a) in the restoration of existing structure, b) in the recreation of a lost building, and c) in the realization of an unbuilt design ?

If we don't insist upon full and complete faith to the original design when we maintain and rehab an existing house, whether it be a Ross, a Balch, a Glore, why do we so insist when it comes to a new recreation ? Is there a difference in this regard between the three varieties of work listed in the previous paragraph ?

Is it the case that an existing building is already thought of as a compromise, while starting from scratch gives us the enviable opportunity to "get it right" once and for all ?

SDR

[JChoate]

RG wrote:

Four. That's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ... when they're not riding their four horses, red, white, black and pale. This has disaster written all over it.

I'm still laughing at that.

I once saw a Shakespeare play where Richard the Third ran the Nazi party. Usually generations seem to spend a lot of effort vacillating between reinterpreting and replicating the creations of their predecessors. Neither right nor wrong, but only good if it's well done.

[Roderick Grant]

"... Neither right nor wrong, but only good if it's well done."

That's a prettily crafted sentence.

[Roderick Grant]

Without rummaging through the history of this site in search of posted photos, I believe there was an entry showing the interiors of the exemplary restoration of City National Bank in Mason City. Should that have been restored as a bank? How precise can a restoration of a non-residential building be if the original use of it can no longer be accommodated? What would a recreated Larkin Building house? Approve or not of the finished work, at least the Yahara Boat Club grandchild is used as intended.

Restoring houses and opening them to the public is dicey enough, but to restore business buildings that have to be repurposed is perhaps a bridge too far?

[SDR]

Well -- older buildings are repurposed all the time: NYC manufacturing lofts became artists' studios; the old main library here is now an Asian art museum. The practice may be more common abroad, where the building stock is far older on average. (Re)building a Wright tower just to see it done, and then finding a use for it, isn't the same thing, for sure -- but if someone is determined to make it happen, then, with an empty but viable structure, the situation is not so different from the examples mentioned here. I could see the Larkin as exhibition space, a school of some sort -- or offices ? How about a design school ?

SDR

[Roderick Grant]

Repurposed commercial/industrial buildings ignore whatever design exists inside. That isn't a problem for most buildings, especially in today's market, where buildings consist of service core, exterior wrapping and blank, rentable floor space. But FLW spent as much effort on the interiors of his non-residential buildings as on his houses ... generally speaking; I doubt he put much refinement into the E-Z Polish Factory or A. D. German Warehouse. Visitors to City National Bank, many of whom might be interested in FLW's work, but unfamiliar with the specifics of his designs, might go away from the experience assuming the interior is as it was. In that particular case, I am sure there is adequate information available on the original state of the interior (although I wonder about the reconfiguration of the adjacent hotel).

[SDR]

True -- but I guess I don't see the problem. The office spaces at Larkin are essentially featureless, thought the walls beneath windows and the parapets of the central space are filled with file drawers of various sizes. I couldn't offer a solution to those, as to whether they should be replicated and then ignored/covered, or not recreated in the first place. Those wall spaces could find better uses for almost any repurposing of the building. See p 10 of the thread.

But the decoration of the spandrels and piers of the atrium could be recreated. Original-type light fixtures could be fitted with modern lamps. The only prohibition should be the filling-in of that light well with new floor space !

The purpose of such a recreation should not be to fool people into thinking that they're in the original building -- nor should it be, on the other hand, an amusement-park attraction; rather, it would be done to enable the visitor to see and feel Wright's work -- his spaces, his proportions, his detailing, his vision.

SDR

[flwromanza]

http://www.architecturalrecord.com/arti ... hael-miner

Signing off.